Sri.S.Viswanatha Raju v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No.2 rejecting the petitioner's mutation proceedings No.D1 12567t2024 dated 27.O3.2O25 without following procedure and not considering the orders passed by Respondent No.3 vide proceedings Case.No.D5/1 036t2o10 dated 06.01 .2015 in respect of all the land admeasuring Ac4.00 Gts in Sy.No.547tB of Kolthur village, tMuduchintalapally mandal, Medchal-tr/alkajgiri dist is highly illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of lndia and consequently set a side the proceedings No.D1l256712O24 dated 27.03.2025 by the Respondent No.2 and direct the respondent No.2 implement the petitioner's name in respect of all the land admeasuring Ac4.00 Gts in Sy.No.547lB of Kolthur village, lrluduchintalapally mandal, tvledchal-tMalkajgiri dist in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Order in proceedings No.D11256712024 dated 27.03.2025 passed by the Respondent No.2 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition in the interest of justice. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to implement the petitioner's name in respect of all the land admeasuring Ac4.00 Gts in Sy.No.547lB of Kolthur village, Ir/uduchintalapally mandal, tVledchal-tt/alkajgiri dist pending disposal of the above Writ Petition in the interest of justice. Counset for the Petitioner : SRI V.S.R.M.V.PRASAD SANAKA Counsel for the Respondents No.1to5: SRt L.RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE Counset for the Respondents No.6 : Ms.SAGARIKA, rep., SRI D.PAVAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE Counsel for the Respondents No.7to9 I The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION 0.14289 of 2o25 ORDER : This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: "...to issue a Wit Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the actioru of the respondent No 2 rejecting the petitioners mutation proceedings No.Dl/ 2567/ 2024 dated 27.03.2025 without follouing procedure and not considering the orders passed bg Respondent No.3 uide Proceedings Case No.DS/ 1036/201O dated 06-01-2015 in respect of all the land admeasuring Acs.4.OO Gts in Sy No.547/ B of Kolthur uillage, Muduchintalapally mandal, Med"chal-Matkajgiri dis/ is highlg illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and also uiolatiue of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently sef aside the proceedings No.Dl/2567/2024 dated 27.03-2025 by the Respondent No.2 and" direct the respondent No-2 implement the petitioruers name in respect of all the'land admeasuing Ax.4.00 Gfs in Sy.No.547/B of Kolthur uillage, Mud u chint alap allg mandaL Me dchal-M alkaj giri dist in the interest of justice and to pass..."

2. Heard sri vsRMV Prasad Sanaka, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenlle, for respondgnt Nos.1 to 5 and Ms.Sagarika, learned counsel representing Mr. D.Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.6 and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land to an extent of Acs.4.00 guntas in Sy.No.547, situated at Koltoor Village, shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under the registered sale deed bearing document No.12l43l 1989, dated 17 .1O.1989. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for mutation before respondent No.S in revenue entries by submitting proper e-seva application, on the said application respondent No.S issued a Memo No.B/ 1872 /2OO7 , dated LS.O2.2OOB rejecting the application on the ground that the vendors have not having title. After knowing the said fact, respondent No.5 mutated the name of respondent No.6 in respect of the subject property uide File No.B / 247 s /92, dated 1g.02.1993. Immediately, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before 1 Page 3 of7 respondent No.4 aggrieved by the order dated L8.O2.1993 and also to set aside the Memo bearing No.B/ 187212007, dated 15.02.2OO8. But respondent No.4 without appreciating the documentary evidences has dismissed the Appeal filed by the petitioner uide No.A2/535912OO8, dated

11.01.2010. Against which, the petitioner preferred revision before respondent No.3 seeking to set aside the order dated

11.01.2O1O and also the order passed by respondent No.5 dated 18.02.1993 and set aside the Memo bearing in File No.B/ 1872/2OO7, dated 16.02.2008. The said revision uide Case No.DS/ 1036 /2OlO, dated 06.01.2015 is allowed by setting aside the order passed by respondent No.4 dated 1 1.01 .2OIO and respondent No.S dated 18.02.1993 and Memo bearing in File No.B/1872/2007, dated 16.O2.2OOB. Respondent No.3 directed respondent No.5 to conduct denovo enquiry by examining the claims and documents of both the parties by issuing notices to all the concerned. None of the respondents has challenged the orders of respondent No.3 passed on 06.01.2015. Respondent No.5 ['age 4 o[7 issued notice No.B/48912O15 in July, 2016 to the petitioner to attend for hearing on 16.07.2016. But respondent No.S did not conduct any enquiry. Later on, the petitioner made several representations to respondent No.5 on 03.05.2019,

20.O9.2OL9, 29.O2.2O2O, O2.O2.2O21 seeking to implement the order dated 06.01.2015 of respondent No.3. The petitioner also made representation dated 22.12.2022 to respondent No.2 to direct respondent No.S to conduct the denovo enquiry.

4. As respondent No.5 failed to implement the said orders, the petitioner filed W.P.No.17546 of 2024 before this Court. This Court uide its order dated O5.O7.2O24 has disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to submit Online Application and upon filing which, directed respondent No.2 to consider the same and also the orders of respondent Nos.4 and 5 and pass appropriate strictly in accordance with law. The petitioner has complied with the order dated O5.O7.2O24 by submitting online application uide reference No.C|24OOO27393, dated 22.07.2024 to /. i! - Page 5 of7 respondent No.2. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representations dated 31.or .2024 and 2s.o9.2024 by disclosing all relevant documents to respondent No.2. Despite receiving, respondent No.2 has not acted upon it. Therefore, the petitioner filed contempt case uid.eNo.2153 of 2024 against respondent No.2. Upon receiving the contempt notice from this Hon'ble court, respondent No.2 passed. impugned notice No.D r 12562 /2024, dated 2T .o3.2o2s without following guidelines and without appreciating the order passed by this court dated os.oz.2o24. Hence, the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 wourd submit that the directions passed by this court have been complied with and necessary notices have been effected to the petitioner. The case of respondent No.6 is quite clear and based upon the merits, impugned notice has been issued. Hence, seeks to dismiss the present writ petition. 6 E\h Learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue *\ would submit that respondent No.2 has passed the order on l'age 6 o[7 .\' \l\ merits and so far as the notices are concerned, if the petitioner is not satisfied, further proceedings will be conducted by affording opportunity to the petitioner as and when the petitioner approaches the said authority with appropriate representation.

7. In the light 6f tne aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and upon perusing the material available on record, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned proceedings uide Proc.No.Dl /2567 /2024, dated 27.O3.2025 issued by respondent No.2 and remand the matter back to the revisional authority constituted under Section 15(1) of the Bhu Bharathi Act, 2025, who shall, in turn, afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, unofficial respondents and all concerned parties as by procedure established by lavv and upon examination of the records pass appropriate orders in accordance 'uvith law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. I'age7 of 7

8. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand also disposed of I To, 1 //TRUE COPYII S A. SRINIVASA REDDY STANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER The Prl. Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad ' Telangana State, dist, Markajgiri 2' The District corector,'Medchar-Markajgiri 3' The Joint co'ector-r, Medchar-Markajgiri dist Markajgiri 4' The Revenue Divisionarofficer, Keesara Revenue Division, Medchar_Markjgiri 5' The Tahsirdar, Muduchintarapary Mandar, Medchar-Markajgiri District 6. ONE CC tO SRI V.S.R.M.V.PRASAD 7 ' 8,irt"t to GP FoR REVEN,E, High courr for the state of Terangana. 8. One CC to SRt D.PAVAN KUMAR, Advocate. tOpUCl 9. Two CD Copies. SANAKA, AdVOCAIE. TOPUC] BSK GJP I I HIGH COURT DATED:1 311112025 o WP.No.142 9 of 2025 oR 1HE S14 k i 1E oEc m[ i: (,-) t t:) r.s I)Ai C H9.' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS